politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Exactly 18 months to go before GE2015 a look at whether inc
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Exactly 18 months to go before GE2015 a look at whether incumbent governments ALWAYS recover
As can be seen the first opposition leader to break the rule was Mrs. Thatcher in 1979. Jim Callaghan’s government performed worse on election day than the polls 18 months beforehand – but then, of course, there was the “winter of discontent”.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I agree there is nothing automatic about swingback. To the contrary, I think (without checking the data) that 1992 was the last time I can recall when an election campaign really made a significant difference to the result.
All of this suggests to me that if the tories are going to recover to an even potentially winning position it is important that they make progress fairly quickly. Another 40% day for Labour in Yougov suggests not only stability but a recovery from the radio silence period of the summer.
The tories need an omnishambles in reverse and the pressure on Osborne to deliver that next month is quite acute.
Latest YouGov / The Sun results 6th November - Con 33%, Lab 40%, LD 9%, UKIP 12%; APP -25
Just 65% of Labour VI and 57% of Labour 2010 says that EdM would make best PM.
Take a repeat of that one therefore...
Black monday followed soon after but the Tories were back safely by then....
Coalition trying to break recent pattern therefore..
The economy should help with such voters as should the evidence that the consequences of a tory government on public spending, for example, were grossly overstated. But I agree that the message needs to be more targetted too. To misuse one of the worst election campaigns ever "are the government thinking what they are thinking?"
Not sure it's instructive to take Major's first month of polls, presumably he got a bounce?
But the Tories will certainly need more than the 1.2/1.3 that Blair and Brown managed to put on - which is pretty good after Iraq and so long in government. So still hope for the blues...
The problem here is that the Government is two parties. The overall Coalition share remaining the same could mean the Lib Dems being obliterated and a Conservative majority of three figures, or the Conservatives being annihilated and a Lib Dem led (perhaps with an outright majority) government.
F1: I'd heard muttering on Twitter about this, but it seems there's a serious possibility Perez will get tossed overboard and replaced with Magnussen next season:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula-one/24844304
That wouldbe an enormous blow for the Mexican, not least because he hasn't, reportedly, been talking to any other teams. So, he might be out next year.
Lord Nelson visits Portsmouth - it's today's Matt: pic.twitter.com/bQYFK8WqaT
Sorry link not working but Matt strikes again.
Can you post raw vote shares? That way we can test to see whether the Fisher model is becoming, more or less accurate over time, or remaining constant in error
Until Ed B tells Ed M - how are we to know?
"Instead, Ed Miliband opted for a commitment on energy that that he knows carries greater risks of defining Labour as an anti-business throwback to the 1970s but that is resolutely outside of Ed Balls’ ambit.
The paradox of the policy is that a move which has been reported as demonstrating the leader’s strength – and in fairness, courage is required to take a chance on a totally new approach – has been driven, in part, by his weakness in defining Labour’s fiscal policy.
This is the realpolitik behind Labour’s energy price freeze."
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2013/10/29/the-realpolitik-behind-labours-energy-price-freeze/
The big swings against were in Labour govts.
But all elections are unique, and the next one will be especially so.
Also there has only been one single term govt since the war.
interpreting precedent will not be easy.
The Tories have a monumental task if they want to win a majority. I suspect Miliband's support is flakier than 40% and that some Lib Dems will return from Labour, but the Tories still have 100 marginals to fight (where they are hardly universally popular) and UKIP eating into their right wing.
A lucid message on the economy is super-important. Something simple, something sharp and which the voters will understand. I think middle ground voters will be willing to give the Tories a hearing on the economics, if they get the message right.
I remember the 2005 election campaign when Michael Howard started gaining some traction. Then Gordon Brown, Tony Blair et al took to a stage one day, pulled out a load of computerised bar charts and showed the "hole in the Tories' spending plans". They told BBC News and Sky News and ITV News, whilst live on air, that the Tories in power would lead to starving children and all middle-class families would have to give up one child for use as a chimney sweep. And it was so compelling that the public believed it and the election was over.
It was crude, untrue and unprovable, but it absolutely worked. Crosby needs to come up with something similarly striking.
Now lets see, no money for power stations and warships but unlimited money for Toff Rail and overseas aid.
And some cheerleaders still think that UKIP will be below 5% in 2015. Let me explain, the UKIP vote is driven by disgruntlement with the establishment.
I suggest having a look at what the UKIP odds are in Eastleigh, they're in second place now with a big Conservative vote to squeeze.
Currently the word is as much misused as 'world class' is about English footballers.
But suffice to say there will be no 'Osborne boom' in 2015.
http://www.thegwpf.org/john-howard-religion/
Well worth a long perusal.
There was nothing to "get". You asked a ridiculous question, got the obvious answer, you then asked another embarrassingly absurd question, and got another obvious answer, and then you pretended you knew this all along.
Go to work.
Bad flight home? Get some kip.
http://www.espn.co.uk/redbull/motorsport/story/134131.html
So, top Mercedes teams are Mercedes and McLaren (until 2015 when McLaren goes for Honda engine), Renault has Red Bull and Lotus, and Ferrari has Ferrari and... Sauber, I think would be the next best team.
Given that, a Ferrari engine being best would seem to make a Ferrari Constructors' win a dead cert. Renault could be the tightest, as Vettel's great, but I suspect both Grosjean and Hulkenberg (if he happily gets the seat) are better than Ricciardo. For Mercedes, I think the Rosberg-Hamilton partnership is very strong, certainly better than Button and Perez/Magnussen.
You're looking at things from a London perspective.
And if its only London, especially posh London, which continues to prosper then the Conservatives are highly vulnerable to attacks from both Labour and UKIP that they only care about their 'rich chums'.
Again, a good post. The Tories don't have any narrative. The sort of What Are the Tories For? stuff. The odious Crosby will choose to bang on about immigrants and welfare for 18 months, which may capture some Kippers but will alienate the centrists the Tories need to win. That's the key strategic problem the party has.
It's quite obvious what the Tory campaign narrative will be: The Economy is Finally Recovering (if not booming), Don't Let Labour Crash it Again.
uote>
It might have been, were wages keeping up with prices. They are not, so the country is getting poorer and the public know it. Not denying that will be the line, but it's a much harder well than you might think.
For sure. Living standards are a problem for Tories, and they definitely need a riposte to Ed's populism on energy prices, living wages, etc.
But it should not be beyond them. They just need to time it right (it is arguable Ed has gone off too early with his excellent energy wheeze). Also, there are other ways people measure their prosperity beyond raw income and spending: if unemployment is going down (which it will be, possibly quite speedily, by 2015) then people feel good as they see friends and relatives getting jobs.
Ditto new shops on the high street, an air of optimism, house price rises, etc.
There are many ways of generating a feelgood factor and you can be sure the Tories will do their damnedest to engineer one. The Osborne boomlet. Then they will point the finger and say Do you really want Labour to come in and run the same shop they burned down?
As I say it possibly - probably - won't be enough to win the election, but I reckon it will be much much tighter than present polls suggest, as voters look at Miliband and Balls, and read the Tory narrative, and think: Hmmm...
The trouble with house price stuff is it's largely a London thing. London is unique politically because it's the one region where high earners (and thus owner occupiers) vote Labour in great numbers. People who are deemed "rich" by the bumpkiny Carlottas and Watchers on here are left-wing. It will be hard for the Tories to beat Labour in a Labour city, house price boom or not.
Overseas aid money is not unlimited.
HS2 money is not unlimited.
And I dread to think what you mean by 'no money for power stations'.
UKIP pretend to be 'better' than the other parties. Their supporters could at least start by telling the truth instead of chest-thumping.
(*) We really have to ask ourselves why BAE sells other weaponry very effectively around the world, but its shipbuilding has been a relative failure, export-wise. Personally, I think we've been building the wrong sort of vessels for the export markets - too expensive to build, to expensive to run, and over-capable.
We expect some of the switchers to come back in Con/LD marginals of course; how many more would with a different leader.
The other way to do this is to use Rod Crosby's by-election swing method, which has a consistent way of getting data and doesn't get blown around by methodology changes. That shows a fairly consistent swing back to the government from by-election results, and also points to a closer race than the current polls are showing.
"After a sweeping victory fueled by lofty ideological promises and happy family portraits, Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio woke up on Wednesday to a crueler reality: a $2 billion hole in the next city budget, a dysfunctional state legislature skeptical about his tax plan, a police department frozen by a federal lawsuit and municipal unions clamoring for raises.
But Mr. de Blasio, put simply, needs the governor’s help. His campaign platform includes a long list of proposals, big and small, that cannot happen without approval in Albany, from issuing driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants to classifying “subway grinding” as a felony.
Then there is Mr. de Blasio’s centerpiece plan, which crystallized his campaign’s Robin Hood message: raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for prekindergarten classes. Mr. Cuomo, who is up for re-election next year, has made it clear that reducing taxes, not raising them, is his priority for 2014."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/07/nyregion/challenges-aplenty-await-new-yorks-new-mayor.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131107&_r=0&pagewanted=all
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10431746/Scotland-will-only-get-warship-orders-if-voters-reject-independence-warn-UK-ministers.html
And then the class bully wonders why he does not feature very highly in the polularity stakes? Good grief.
Given EdM's continued poor - though slightly improving - ratings and an economy on the up, 2015 is an election the Tories *should* win outright. If they don't (and right now it looks like they won't) they will only have themselves to blame.
Re Sean T's post, as quoted by MacolmG "Yes all those charity , poundshops , bookmakers and pawnbrokers are really making people feel good."
The "Portas town" I know best doesn't seem to have a "feelgood factor". Slow decline as before. Big refit for the main pub, but that's about it, and the pub hasn't re-opened yet to make anyone feel good about it!
I'd like to.
"So incomes will be more equal under this government than they were under Labour 1997-2010, but also than under late Thatcher and John Major.
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/11/06/cameron-on-inequality/
If yes, the prospect of PM Milliband is horrendous.
"Where's the PM? There's a crisis? "
"Oh, Ed's in the toilet having a little cry."
That may be modern and metrosexual, but ...
If it's a choice between giving people are foreigners or people who are British jobs, surely the British Government will opt for buying British?
A lot depends on how the eurozone goes, and how the referendum turns out. I've long believed that a Yes vote would really help both the SNP and the Conservatives.
Or do you plan to order them from England?
a) wise?
b) unwise?
Well its an improvement on you accusing me of being a Labour supporter.
For all your frothing you have predictably missed the underlying political effect.
Namely that people want someone to blame for their misfortunes.
And this government is giving plenty of scope for them to blame it.
An extraordinarily silly man that Hammond.
Do you think telling the Scottish electorate the potential consequences of an independence vote:
A) Honest?
Which is the SNP policy?
Where I think the Tories are cocking things up is:
1) They don't even seem to have a strategy which, if a bunch of lucky things happened, would get them a majority, eg hoping the UKIPpers come home and working on expanding their appeal in the centre.
2) For a party that looks unlikely to win a majority but with a reasonable hope of a Hung Parliament, they seem to have made it quite difficult to create a new coalition.
EdM should IMO be getting credit for good strategic timing. The radio silence period was painful for Labour people but it's now clear that it didn't do us lasting harm. He's put Labour's themes on the front page ever since the conference - first energy, then cost of living generally, then the living wage, now potentially the NHS. I think a point or two of the 40 is coming from that and could subside again but we're in good shape to get 38. Can the Tories top 40?
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/orrin-hatch-chris-christie-susana-martinez-2016-election-99484.html?hp=r8
Politico is sharp. PB is sharper.
- A coalition official made the point more clearly later. Asked if an independent Scotland could build the next generation of navy frigates, the person said: “Since the second world war, we have not built warships outside the UK. That remains the case.” The implicit threat is clear.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e49dfdf0-4703-11e3-bdd2-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2jwnWIwLf
There may well end up being, should independence occur, a quid pro quo regarding Faslane (if not and the Scottish Government forces its closure then the costs to the British taxpayer would be enormous and it would begin the bilateral relationship between the two nations on a very bad note), but there's no automatic right for Scots to enjoy jobs historically given to Britons if they have chosen to stop being Britons.
But just check that your private health insurance is up to date first, cos you are going to need it.
"6 weeks since Lab conf, new Populus data (13,000+ sample) shows Lab +0.12%, Con +0.56% compared with previous 6 weeks"
These so called structural problems are overblown, primarily an excuse. The electoral position of the Tories is stronger than Blair faced in opposition. We forget that in 1992 the popular wisdom was that Labour could not win under FPTP.
The Tory strategy is odd. They're spending far too much time talking to themselves and their right flank. The Tory tent is smaller, not larger than 2010.
- From a purely pragmatic point of view, do you think that Better Together explicitly threatening the Scottish electorate is:
a) wise?
b) unwise?
I can understand why you don't want to locate a Faslane-like facility at any English port, but that does not excuse keeping such a facility only 30 miles from the centre of the largest urban conurbation in Scotland.
Independence has consquences, some good, some bad. The SNP should recognise that.
Their biggest structural challenge is the voting system, which they support; and the constituency boundaries, which they could have seen altered if they had not messed the LDs about so much.
Indeed. IMHO the failure of the Tories to ensure they got the boundary changes is the most baffling of all their strategic errors. These changes were fundamental to their chances of winning a majority - nothing could be more important, but they threw it all away purely in order to stick two fingers up at the Lib Dem HoL reform proposals! Unbelievable!
Besides which, the failure to do so may help an independent Scotland a great deal. An agreement over currency in exchange for the temporary continuation of the Faslane base could be made, whereas if there were another site in the UK that could do the job you wouldn't have nearly such a large bargaining chip.
But fairy nuff, I agree with your "bargaining chip" point. The English government has succeeded in throwing away some of their best chips.
It was only really in Autumn 2007, when the financial collapse started to happen, that the Tories came back to life again. Although Brown was previously seen as a decent chancellor, people did not see him as PM. They therefore started to listen to the Tories. Cameron and Osborne really only got the Tories into a position of looking like an alternative government, when they started to oppose the government. I cannot remember Cameron/Osborne actually stating any substantive alternative policies to those of Brown/Darling, but their general opposition was enough to boost Tory polling. As the Tories did not have a convincing economic plan, they did not win a majority in 2010.
In 2015 because of cost of living increases and peoples incomes not compensating for this, I doubt the Tories will benefit from an improving economy. Whether people see Labours policies as being any better remains to be seen. If they don't, then we will be in for another hung parliament, with probably Labour having most seats.
A wind turbine that cost the Welsh government £48,000 to buy has been generating an average of just £5 worth of electricity per month.
The turbine was put its Aberystwyth office, rated excellent for sustainability, in 2009.
The Welsh government said the turbine had had mechanical problems.
But before it was installed, the turbine makers warned Welsh government contractors it would not be exposed to enough wind where it was to be placed.
The turbine's output has been monitored officially since January last year and figures suggest it could take hundreds of years for it to offset the cost of its purchase and installation.
The Welsh government confirmed in a response to a Freedom Of Information request that between January 2012 and July this year the turbine generated 585 kilowatt hours of energy (kWh) - an average of 33 kWh per month.
Taking 16p as an estimate for the current price of electricity per kWh in the consumer market, it works out at a value of £5.28 per month.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-24844182
It's always Heads I win, Tails you lose with the Nats isn't it.
There will be plenty of people in Portsmouth doing likewise today - "All that money for foreign aid and that posh railway but nothing for us. They bailed out the bankers but put us on the dole".
This is the problem the government is creating for itself.
It gives the impression that its priorities are:
1) London
2) Scotland
3) Rest of the world
But elections aren't won in these places but in medium sized towns and its these places which feel ignored, indeed looked down upon, by the government.